accordingly applied for his discharge, got it, and was paid his wages for the time he had served: but because the sessions did not specially find this to be fraudulent, the court would not imply fraud from the facts; and as the servant was discharged before the end of his year, they held that he did not gain a settlement (d). Where, 500. In several parishes, 502. SECTION IV. Residence. For what time, 505. Where.] A servant, whilst serving under a yearly hiring, is irremovable; and by residing thus irremovable for forty days in any parish during the hiring and service, he there gains the settlement which the statutes confer upon him, according to the general rule already laid down (e). Therefore, in order to gain a settlement by hiring and service, the servant must have resided in the parish for forty days during the service (ƒ). And he is deemed to reside in that parish in which he sleeps, and in which is his place of rest, and not merely in that in which he performs the services for which he is hired. Even where the master's house was in two parishes, and a girl, hired to him as a yearly servant, performed her services in that part of the house which was in the parish of A., but slept in that part which was in the parish of B.: the court held that she gained her settlement in B. by this hiring and service (g). And in a similar case, where, in order to prove that the part of the house where the servant slept was in the parish of St. Mary, and not in the parish of Rougham, an award of commissioners for inclosing lands in both parishes and ascertaining the boundaries of both, made since the service, was put in, by which that part of the house where the servant slept was declared to be in the parish of St. Mary; and the sessions, holding the award in that respect to be retrospective, refused to allow the opposite party to prove, that before the award that part of the house was really in the parish of Rougham: the court however held that the award was not retrospective, nor conclusive as to the boundaries of the parishes before the inclosure, and therefore sent the case back to sessions to be reheard (h). But it is not necessary that the servant should (d) R. v. Preston, Burr. S. C. 69; 2 Bott, 310. (e) Ante, p. 405. (g) Feversham v. Gravenny, Fort. 221. (h) R. v. St. Mary, in Bury St. (f) Goring v. Moltsworth, Sess. Edmund's, 4 B. & A. 462. Ca. 327; 1 Barnard. 436. reside in the same house with the master (i), nor in the same parish; in Feversham v. Gravenny, above mentioned, it appeared that the master slept in that part of the house which was in the parish of A., and the servant in that part which was in the parish of B.: and the court held that the servant was settled in B. (k). So, where the proprietor of the Oxford stage coaches, hired a man to take care of the horses at an inn at Wycomb, where the coach baited: and the master resided at Oxford, the servant served and resided at Wycomb: the court held that the servant gained a settlement at Wycomb (1). So, where a gentleman, residing in the parish of A., kept hounds in the parish of B. and hired a huntsman by the year to look after them, who resided in B. for that purpose: the court held that the huntsman gained a settlement in B., although his master neither resided nor had any settlement in that parish (m). So, where a man was hired for a year as groom to the Earl Portmore, to look after his race horses, and served; he then continued on, and served for ten months at Ilsley, which was a place for training race horses, but where the earl had no residence: the court held that he gained a settlement at Ilsley (n). And where a servant, about the middle of his year's service, became so ill that his master sent him to his father's house in another parish, until he should be well enough to return to his work, and provided him with victuals and medical attendance; he was unable, however, to return during the remainder of the year, and never afterwards slept in his master's parish: the court held that he gained a settlement in the father's parish (o). Nor is it necessary that the servant should reside in the same parish in which the service is performed (p); even if he reside in a different parish, without the consent of his master, his settlement will be in the parish in which he resides. And, therefore, where a gardener, hired by the year to Lord Boston, served him for four years at Hedsor; but during the fourth year he married a woman at Little Marlow, and slept there more than forty nights, though not consecutively, during the remainder of the year, without asking leave of his master, working all the while at Hedsor: the court held that he gained a settlement at Little Marlow (q). So, where a man was hired for a year as gamekeeper and served, living over the stables at his master's residence in the parish of Nymps field; he then continued on, without any fresh hiring, and served three months, during which he married a girl at Avening, and slept there more than forty nights, without asking the leave of the master or his steward: the court held that he gained a settlement at Avening (r). But where a person residing at Mildenhall hired a man to drive the mail cart from that place to Newmarket, where he slept for about four hours in a bed hired there by the master by the year, and then returned with the mail to Mildenhall, where he again went to bed for a few hours, and was then employed in his master's service generally during the day: the court held that he gained no settlement in Newmarket by this service and residence, for Newmarket could not be said to be his place of rest (8). In one case, it was holden that a yearly servant, residing at a watering-place, where his master was but a casual visitor, did not gain a settlement there by his service and residence (t). But in a more recent case, where a man hired for a year as servant to a gentleman at Bath Easton; and when he had served there about eight months, his master went with his family to Exmouth, a watering place, for the season, at first renting a furnished house by the week, but afterwards living in lodgings, and the man served him there during the remainder of the year, and was then discharged: the court held that as the last forty days of the service was in Exmouth, the servant gained a settlement there, although his master's permanent residence was elsewhere (u). So, where an attorney, residing at Furnival's Inn, but occasionally visiting Bath and living there in lodgings, hired a man as a yearly servant, who served and resided with him sometimes in Furnival's Inn (which is extra-parochial), and sometimes in the parish of St. James in Bath, for eight years: the court held that as no settlement could be gained by service and residence in Furnival's Inn, it being extra-parochial, and as it was then well established that settlements might be gained at watering places, the settlement of the pauper was at St. James's in Bath (x). In several parishes.] As a yearly servant gains a settlement by his hiring and service, in that parish in which he resides forty days, it follows that if he resides forty days in each of two or more parishes during the year, he gains a settlement in each. But as by gaining a settlement, a man relinquishes any settlement he before had, a yearly servant therefore is deemed to be settled in that parish in which he resides during (r) R. v. Nympsfield, Cald. 107. (8) R. v. Mildenhall, 3 B. & A. 374. (t) Alton v. Elvetham, Burr. S. C. 418. (u) R. v. Bath Easton, Burr. S. C. 774. (x) R. v. St. Andrew, Holborn, 2 Bott, 292. the last day of his service, and in which he has previously resided at least thirty-nine days during the year. Therefore, where a girl hired for a year to a farmer in Ashton, and served half a year there, and then, her master removing to a farm in Patshall, she served the remainder of the year there: the court held that she gained a settlement in Patshall, saying, that if a servant hired for a year, and served more than forty days in several parishes, amounting in the whole to the year, that parish in which he serves last shall be his place of settlement (y). So, where a man was hired for a year, as warrener of a warren in Eldersley, and during the first eight weeks he resided with one of the occupiers of it in a different parish, but during the remainder of the year he resided on the warren at Eldersley: the court held that he gained his settlement at Eldersley (z). So, where a man hired for a year in the liberty of St. Andrew, and served there he then continued on without any fresh hiring, and served for nine months, during three months of which he served and resided in St. Andrew's, and six months in the parish of St. Cuthbert, to which his master had removed: the court held that he gained his settlement in St. Cuthbert's (a). So, where a man hired for a year at Ladock, and served there, he then hired for another year, and served at Ladock half of the time, when his master dying, his executor asked him if he was willing to serve the remainder of the year to him, to which he consented, and he accordingly served and resided the remainder of the year at the parish of St. Enoder, where the executor resided: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement at St. Enoder; the contract of hiring was not put an end to by the death of the master, but survived to the executor; and as this was but a continuance of the same hiring and service, the settlement was gained in that parish in which the servant resided the last forty days (b). So, where a girl hired for a year to a lady in Christchurch, an extra-parochial place; her mistress afterwards went on a visit to her son at Fawley, where the girl served her and resided more than forty days; she then returned to Christchurch, where the girl served the remainder of the year: the court held that the girl's settlement was in Fawley; even if she had hired abroad, and came into England with her mistress, she might properly be said to be hired in any parish into which she went with her mistress, and the parish in which she served the last forty days of her year would be her place of settlement (c). So, where a man hired for a year at Kyo, and served and resided there six months: he then married and took a cottage (y) R. v. Ashton, 2 Bott, 273. (z) R. v. Eldersley, 2 Bott, 274. (a) R. v. Croscombe, Burr. S. C. 256; 2 Str. 1240. (b) R. v. Ladock, Burr. S.C. 179. (c) R. v. St. Peter's, in Oxford, 1 Str. 524; 8 Mod. 50. at Iveston, where he lived until within a fortnight of the end of his year, working in the day-time at Kyo, with his master; he then returned to Kyo, where he resided until his year had expired: the court held that he gained his settlement at Kyo; when there is an inhabitancy of forty days, at intervals, throughout the year, in any number of parishes, the last day's inhabitancy connects itself with the previous inhabitancy in the same parish; and if in the whole there be an inhabitancy of forty days there, the servant's settlement shall be in that parish (d). So, where a man hired for a year from Michaelmas, and served; during three months of the time, he served and resided at Fetcham; he then married, and resided in Great Bookham, except the last night of his year, when he slept at his master's at Fetcham: the court held that he gained his settlement at Fetcham (e). Where a man hired for a year as a waller, and served in Caldbeck about eight months; his master then having little work for him, gave him leave to go home to his father at Sawrey for six weeks, and he went accordingly, resided seven weeks at Sawrey, and then came back and worked for his master; but four days before the end of his year, he went again to his father at Sawrey, with the leave of his master, and being there taken ill, he could not return until after his year had expired: the court held that as he had slept at Sawrey, the last night of his hiring, with his master's leave, having previously resided there more than thirty-nine days, he thereby gained a settlement in that parish, although he was doing no service for his master there (ƒ). So, where a man was hired for a year, in May, 1819, and served accordingly; he resided constantly with his master in Dremerchion, from the time of the hiring until November, when he married, after which he resided only from Monday morning until Saturday evening in each week with his master, and by his master's permission, from Saturday evening until Monday morning, with his wife in the parish of St. Asaph; he resided thus more than forty days at St. Asaph, and slept there on the nights of Saturday and Sunday, the last two days of his year; on the Monday he went again to his master's, and continued afterwards working for him as a day-labourer. It was objected, that as the pauper performed no service for his master during his residence at St. Asaph, the residence there had no reference to the hiring, and therefore he gained no settlement by it: but the court held, that although that rule obtained in settlements by apprenticeship, arising from the words " binding and inhabitation," in stat. 3 W. & M. c. 8, the rule did not extend to cases of hiring and service, in which cases the settlement is (d) R. v. Iveston, Cald. 288. (f) R. v. Undermilbeck, 5 T. R. 387. 1 |